Until the forum has shown its competency with the statistics that I gave which showed that blacks target whites for violent crime I am not responding any more.

So in other words you'd rather be ignorant than engage us. To my mind that suggests you don't want to listen and are so comfortable in your prejudiced notions that all those who'd argue against it are so ignorant it's not worth engaging.

Even if all of your assumptions were fair and accurate your plan fails hard at one single point. Building walls to separate people will just mean people will tear them down. Segregation would result in protests and even possibly riots. If black people are as violent as you're presupposing, prepare to see a wave of even more violence in the form of a revolt.

Of course, if you addressed these problems at the source, for example at poverty, the gap between rich & poor, education and employment, you may find the problems reducing. In the UK, we suffer similar problems with violence, poverty, crime and unemployment and there's no distinction between black and white here, you've got a large population of white people with the same problem so it's not so easy to come to the racist conclusion that black people are the problem. So I would argue skin colour has nothing to do with this problem.

Logged

“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto MusashiWarning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

The idea that you are freethinkers remains as illusory as the validity of empiricism.

Freethinkiners. I do not believe I have ever used that phrase. I do not think it is used much by anyone here. What exactly do you mean by "freethinker"? It sounds like you are just trying to be insulting. So a bunch of catholics had some good ideas. How does that make our thinking less "free" (whatever that means)? Do you expect each of us to derive the entirely of human knowledge on our own? Does the fact that the bible was the RCC's creation make your heretical brand of xianity less "freethinking"?

A Jesuit priest is a very queer type of person. He is not a normal priest or monk. He is, if he has taken the fourth vow, a sworn assassin. This order was created by the Vatican to destroy the Protestant Reformation and to destroy the cultural and financial well being of Protestant nations, by infiltration, class warfare, racial liberation theology and if needs be, assassination.

Yeah. Assassins. Right. That would be hilariously funny if, you know, you didn't take it competely seriously.

Oli, I say this in all seriousness - seek help. You are wrapping youself in ideas that are literally crazy.

Until the forum has shown its competency with the statistics that I gave which showed that blacks target whites for violent crime I am not responding any more.

This is practically the same reason he gave for dropping out of the other thread - that I wasn't capable of understanding his arguments (yet) and thus he was no longer going to argue with me. Never mind that this is ultimately a self-defeating approach, because if I really were so incapable, the only way I could possibly understand is if someone helped me with it. So by withdrawing he would make it more difficult to understand, and the same people who did not understand his arguments would still not understand them the next time he brought them up.

In short, it's an excuse so that he can justify not responding. It might be one thing if he'd just be honest about his reasons for withdrawing - that he's tired of continuous argument, or that it's not getting anywhere - but he's not. He's just catering to his own prejudices, anyone who argues with him must not be competent, otherwise they wouldn't be arguing because they'd agree with him.

In short, it's an excuse so that he can justify not responding. It might be one thing if he'd just be honest about his reasons for withdrawing - that he's tired of continuous argument, or that it's not getting anywhere - but he's not. He's just catering to his own prejudices, anyone who argues with him must not be competent, otherwise they wouldn't be arguing because they'd agree with him.

It's a defense mechanism. He thinks his ideas are The Truth and everyone should believe them. It comes as a shock to him that people don't and he takes it personally. He feels insulted. So his way to deal with it is to write off his opponents in a condescending way.

He is a young man who is trapped in a phase many young men go through during puberty where they want everything to be certain, black and white, cut and dried, literal. And they look down their noses at anyone who disagrees with them.

I once knew a couple boys who liked heavy metal and believed that it was objectively The Best music to listen to. They were very smart but socially awkward nerds, just like Oli. It was not a matter of taste in their minds. They had a whole argument based on how difficult it was to play and how complex it was to compose. And they felt contempt for anyone who preferred any other kind of music. They saw them as stupid, shallow, vapid, persons lesser than themselves. It was a desire to be Right born of insecurity and hypersensitivity. It is fairly obvious how religion plays into these feelings.

Atheists are good, they very good then the Catholics..Why "I think flowing my won creating things are worse than following nothing"? The roman Catholics made their own path in many ways...

---------------------

Hi Gonzalez - welcome to the forum! Hate to have to do this to you on your first post, but a couple points....

First off, the last response to this thread was 4 months ago - that usually means people have moved on. We ask people to avoid "thread necromancy" unless there is a very good reason!

And second, please try to be selective in your quoting. Quoting a hundred lines for a one-line response (or similar ratios) fills out the page and makes it harder to see what exactly it is you are responding to. There is a quoting tutorial here which may be useful